Tom Barrett, emails and gun violence

On Jan. 16, Mayor Tom Barrett held a news conference to express support for President Barack Obama's gun-control initiatives.

During his remarks, Barrett said he believed most Americans supported gun control, but predicted gun-control opponents would call his office and send him emails.

We decided to check. Under the state's Open Records law, the Journal Sentinel requested all emails sent to the mayor's office from Jan. 13 through Feb. 5. The Journal Sentinel requested emails pertaining to gun safety, gun control or gun violence. »Read Full Blog Post

While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

We need to computerize all of the current records we have on gun purchases so we can find out where all the illegal guns are coming from. We need to collect data to find the areas where we can prevent guns getting into the wrong hands. We need background checks for all purchases of guns. If you don't agree, please suggest solutions other than everyone carrying guns.

1. Where all the illegal guns are coming from? What illegal guns? Semiautomatic "assault" rifle guns are legal. The only illegal guns are fully automatic and I don't know of any story that talks about them being a problem

2. Prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands? Talk to Obama on that one. He sent guns to drug cartels in Mexico, resulting in the murder of innocent children, women, and Americans.

3. Background checks on purchases of guns? That won't stop a thing. If I am a felon what is stopping me from having my wife, son/daughter, or buddy from buying a gun? Adam Lanza was under age, could not buy a gun, so he murdered his mother to gain access to her guns. What is stopping a criminal from doing that? No amount of laws or regulation will fix that. Criminals are determined and will do whatever they can to get guns.

The solution is to create more areas of concealed carry so that these people can be stopped by trained, armed citizens before the damage gets too bad

@ Paul , I don't agree. Our Govt. already has much of the info you suggest , and they don't use it. Now if they would include the whacko's that are seeing a therapist , that might help some. Also , our Govt. is in part , partially responsible for illegal guns (F & F). Sir , they already know where and how to get illegal guns because they have a clue. Do you?

New guns purchased legally can be traced to the purchaser ergo they are registered ergo the data is already there and does not need to be collected.

So Paul, define an illegal gun? One that was stolen? How's your computerized records going to be of any help there? By letting you know who it was stolen from? And that can already be done anyway.

And what good is tracking a gun after it was used in a crime? Like I said that can already be done anyway.

Knee jerk reaction like so many others wanting to do something but not understanding what will really help the problem.

The problem goes way past firearms,

Like a life is worth something and once taken there is no going back. But so many think it's OK to kill somebody because they dis'd them and then have no remorse and never will. That is the problem that needs to be addressed and until it is people will continue to kill people with or without a gun.

@Paul Oman- Define 'legal'. If they were never supposed to be in the hands of private people (I hesitate to call everyone 'citizen'), they're definitely illegal but if they were stolen, how many hands have they passed through? Were they reported? If they were legal initially and stolen or purchased from the original owner, again, how many hands have they passed through? If they were stolen from the original owner and stolen again, there's no way the first thief would report it, so there's no direct link. Maybe you just want everyone handing all of their personal info to the government, even when it's an invasion of their privacy, eh? Would you rather have guns sold only by the government? Would you prefer that no guns be sold and all guns that are already out here to be confiscated by the government by force? Can you guarantee that everyone will turn theirs in? Can you guarantee gangs and drug cartels won't send them to Mexico for safe-keeping, until the confiscation is done? It would be like shooting fish in a barrel. You really think people will stop killing others? Nope- they'll just use something else. The real problem is that those who own guns for personal protection will be unable to effectively defend themselves, their families and other innocent people in the area when armed people swarm them for their possessions. DO YOU REALLY THINK BANDS OF HOMEOWNERS AND PEOPLE WHO BUY GUNS FOR PROTECTION WILL GO OUT AND COMMIT CRIMES WITH THEIR GUNS?

This last question is the main point lawmakers have ignored, by choice. LAW-ABIDING PEOPLE AREN'T THE PROBLEM, YET WE'RE BEING PENALIZED, ANYWAY. THE GUN BANS WILL ONLY HARM THE 100m WHO CAN NO LONGER PROTECT THEMSELVES.

Might be time to become a criminal. Well, or maybe a politician. Oops! Sorry for repeating myself.

I think if we look back at the failure spin of Detroit we'd see the same thing that many outsiders meddled.

We need to note all parts of the Constitution have some other governing laws of exception. The 2nd is no different from other parts of the Constitution to require some limitation. We don't allow children to vote when some may have more wisdom than adults. Yet we can say we are a democracy supporting open elections. Some would see that as dishonest since children are denied the right to vote. I support the 2nd under the same context I would the Constitution overall within all the limits. The 2nd is no more or less important than the right to vote, equal rights, etc. Therefore I see it as reasonable that I support Barrett and the 2nd.

How many of those that emailed Barrett were formerly from the Milwaukee area or Wisconsin?

There is alot of revival in the gun debate to rethink the past, question where our lives went wrong and reflect on how laws encroached on our lives. All of that leads to the green grass of home for the lost generation from Milwaukee.

What I am seeing are people that left the area online reflecting on the job loss in Milwaukee and how that changed their lives forever. There are some cities that have so many former Milwaukee folks they could be renamed Little Milwaukee.

That process of the 1980s and the twenty year exodus of the Milwaukee lost generation that followed scattered families, broke up marriages, tore apart friendships and toss alot of people into the world of change. While those folks never stopped having to confront change Milwaukee stayed the same in so many ways.

Hatfields and McCoys, those that stayed in Milwaukee v. those that were forced out. The swarm of the 1980s kids are seeing their kids and grandchildren facing the same uncertain times they did.

Barrett has permanent nerve damage to his arm due to getting beat up with a steel pipe several years ago outside of the State Fair. I wonder how things would have turned out had concealed carry been in effect at that time and a CCL holder was nearby? After being beat up & clubbed, you'd think he'd get a clue.....obviously not.

I think he would prefer that a victim gets pummeled to the point of having permanent damage, then call an ambulance, then hopefully catch the bad guy and prosecute him. Of course soft on crime lefties would then let him off on a plea deal or probation because he was raised in a bad home or something.

I would prefer the ability to protect myself and my family. I 100% guarantee that if I were in that situation it would have ended with him backing down at gunpoint or getting shot. I would have NOT had any facial reconstruction or permanent injuries nor would my family.

I guess it's a difficult decision to make, right?Only if you are a liberal.